greetings!

this topic was inspired by the thread "Does Ten Numb have to roll a focus in order to shed stress?".

that thread didn't stay on topic. the subject was Ten Numbs ability, but as was pointed out by MockingBird ME (props to him), it's a much bigger topic than whether Ten has to roll a focus result to be able to spend a stress while modifying dice when attacking or defending.

he also eloquently presented the following examples:

Lando Calrissian (Custom YT-1300) and (Escape Craft) says: "After you roll dice, if you are not stressed, you may gain 1 stress token to reroll all of your blank results." - could Lando gain a stress even if he rolled no blank results?

Munitions Failsafe says: "While you perform a torpedo or missile attack, after rolling attack dice, you may cancel all dice results to recover 1 charge you spent as a cost for the attack." - could you recover a charge even if you rolled no dice? (with for example multiple Weapons Failure crits on your ship)

Saw Gerrera (Crew) says: "While you perform an attack, you may suffer 1 hit damage to change all of your focus results to critical hit results." - could you suffer hit a even if there are no focus results to change?

and there are more.

Lieutenant Kestal says: "While you perform an attack, after the defender rolls defense dice, you may spend 1 focus token to cancel all of the defender's blank/focus results." - could you spend a focus token even if there are no blank/focus results to cancel?

"Countdown" says: "While you defend, after the Neutralize Results step, if you are not stressed, you may suffer 1 (hit) damage and gain 1 stress token. If you do, cancel all dice results." - could you take a damage and gain a stress even if there are no dice results left?

and leaving the topic of "all", there are similar effects in the game. could you spend a charge from crack shot even if there are no evade results to cancel? could seyn marana spend a crit to deal a faceup damage card, even if she had no remaining results to cancel? can a friendly ship within range 0-1 of prince xizor suffer a hit or a crit even if there are no matching results to cancel? can biggs darklighter suffer a hit or crit while a friendly ship at range 0-1 is defending, even if there are no matching results to cancel?

so far, i'm going with no on all of these questions. they may seem very irrelevant at the moment, but future proofing the rules and making sure everything is clearly stated should be very good for the game in the long run, no?

your thoughts, interpretations and comments, please.

Regarding using a "change all" effect to modify zero results: absent further input, I would say no.

Reasoning: A focus token can be spent to change all eyeball results to hit/evade results. It cannot be spent if zero eyeballs were rolled. There are currently no rules or examples that allow you to use a "change all" effect to change zero results, so this is the only precedent we have to follow on the matter.

The alternative interpretation is that the prohibition on spending focus is an exception to an unstated general rule allowing you to legally modify all of zero results, but this is not supported by any rule or example. Until clarification comes in I am forced to extrapolate from the focus token example that you cannot use an effect that asks you to change all of something unless there is actually something for that effect to change.

It's not just the focus token that says it cannot be spent if zero eyeballs were rolled. Calculate tokens also cannot be spent if zero eyeballs were rolled.

Along those same lines, the rules under both charges and shields say "A ship cannot recover a charge/shield if all of its charges/shields are on their active sides" which says to me that you are not allowed to recover 0 charges/shields to trigger something. Shields also mention that you cannot spend a shield if you don't have any active shields, which again says to me that you are not allowed to spend 0 shields for an effect. And under paying costs, the example expresses that you can't spend something to recover 0 shields.

Taken in total, there are multiple examples in the rules where having 0 of a thing means that you cannot trigger something off of it. Like nexttwelveexits, I have to say that "all" does not include zero.

As added in RR 1.0.2

Quote

• If a die cannot be changed to a given result, nothing happens.
◊ For example, an attack die cannot be changed to an (evade) result because
that result does not appear on that die.

Dice Modification: Add, Change, Reroll, Spend.

You cannot Modify zero dice to any given result. So nothing happens.

And nothing includes any cost and effect and anything.

A different matter is cancelling dice. Cancelling dice is not a modification, so this rule does not apply. Get an eye on Cancel:

Quote

CANCEL
When a die result is canceled, a player takes one die displaying the canceled
result and physically removes the die from the common area. Players ignore
all canceled results.

If you can do zero dice physically removed, you have entered an Schrödinger paradox: you have and not have a die.

So no, you cannot cancel zero die.

10 hours ago, meffo said:

and leaving the topic of "all", there are similar effects in the game. could you spend a charge from crack shot even if there are no evade results to cancel? could seyn marana spend a crit to deal a faceup damage card, even if she had no remaining results to cancel? can a friendly ship within range 0-1 of prince xizor suffer a hit or a crit even if there are no matching results to cancel? can biggs darklighter suffer a hit or crit while a friendly ship at range 0-1 is defending, even if there are no matching results to cancel?

This does not apply. 1 is not 0. The number is specified in the text. You need 1 result .

As much as I read the rules, there are no options to affect 0 results. You cannot do nothing with nothing. I cannot spend 0 token, cannot affect 0 die, cannot do 0 damage, etc.

'All' does not include 0.

4 hours ago, Arachneo said:

You  cannot Modify zero dice to any given result. So nothing happens. 

We all agree on that. The disputable thing is if the fact that nothing happens should prevent us from doing nothing? Can an effect be set in motion if it's known ahead it won't change a thing?

The RR patch example is disappointingly academic. It explains that a die cannot be set to a face that isn't physically present on the die. (Duh?).

But are the current rules preventing us from overriding a results with an exact result? As @nexttwelveexits pointed out, we've got a precedence given by focus, calculate, and shields, explaining these "0" cannot be manipulated. But then, unfortunately, we've got a precedence of evade not stating a word on modifying 0 blank/eye results. Thereby putting in question whether the previous three are all extrapolation of an unwritten rule, or are they being applied their own specific ruling.

Now, before anyone comes back at me for defending the "ridiculous" ruling, know I am in favour of excluding 0 from manipulation. This doesn't mean though I'm not able to see where the dispute comes from.

Back on tracks - the paying costs rule actually isn't as helpful as it seems for this discussion, as it directly refers to a ruling which we know to be true but could prove to be case specific . The wording as it is, it's more of a case that the "paying costs" rule is supporting for the shields ruling, and extends it to inform that a cost of recovering a shield cannot be paid if we know ahead the result wouldn't be resolved (as ruled specifically by the shields ruling) The shields ruling is not an extension to the paying costs one, though.

By the RR patch, we are given that nothing happens when a thing cannot physically be executed. Yet no current ruling explicitly prevents nothing from happening . And if "a nothing" simply can happen by the rules, then paying the costs of making nothing happen shouldn't be prohibited.

if the focus / calculate / shields rule is explained to all come from a generic, underlining truth that "nothing" is not allowed to be resolved, and lack of any explanation in case of the evade can simply be filled out by assuming the generic rule taking place, then we will be all set to stop beating the horse of this topic unconscious. But until this general rule is being written down, some have the right to argue there are precedence cases for both sides of the dispute. And it isn't right to assume just because there are more precedences in favour than against, that the general rule should right out be assumed. Just as most of the sides on an attack die being a non-blank doesn't stop blanks from occurring.

Edit: I hope we soon get to "Assault Gunboat" the s**t out of this topic and we can all peacefully go home knowing that the rules have been finally laid down firmly, leaving nothing left to argue.

"Paying Costs

A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved."

23 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

"Paying Costs

A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved."

And as I tried to lay out above - In my understanding, all we know by far is that in the case there are no dice which would be turned, none are turned and nothing happens . The RR patch explicitly explains " If a die cannot be changed to a given result, nothing happens. " To me, it sounds like "oh well, you can't really do that physically, don't ya? Well, that's not a big deal". If turning a die in an impossible way was forbidden and could not be executed, ergo the effect resolved and the costs paid, the devs should have told us it's illegal and cannot be done, rather than explaining that just " nothing happens " instead.

To put the important rule you're quoting in a logical sudo-code, it looks like:

if ( xyz == cannot be done ) -> don't pay costs

Now, how do we know manipulating 0 dice actually cannot be done, if all we were told is that nothing happens if we dare to try?

I too want to find the way to lay it out in plain sight but I do struggle. I'm open to both rulings, but if the 0-manipulative side will be proven right, I'll be forever salty Garven got nerfed back to casual with the special treatment focus has got.

1 hour ago, ryfterek said:

And as I tried to lay out above - In my understanding, all we know by far is that in the case there are no dice which would be turned, none are turned and nothing happens . The RR patch explicitly explains " If a die cannot be changed to a given result, nothing happens. " To me, it sounds like "oh well, you can't really do that physically, don't ya? Well, that's not a big deal". If turning a die in an impossible way was forbidden and could not be executed, ergo the effect resolved and the costs paid, the devs should have told us it's illegal and cannot be done, rather than explaining that just " nothing happens " instead.

To put the important rule you're quoting in a logical sudo-code, it looks like:

if ( xyz == cannot be done ) -> don't pay costs

Now, how do we know manipulating 0 dice actually cannot be done, if all we were told is that nothing happens if we dare to try?

I too want to find the way to lay it out in plain sight but I do struggle. I'm open to both rulings, but if the 0-manipulative side will be proven right, I'll be forever salty Garven got nerfed back to casual with the special treatment focus has got.

This is going to lead down to a rabbit hole of "I (for some reason) want to take damage as Ten Numb while also clearing stress, so I activate his ability to turn my green focus result into a hit," isn't it?

1 hour ago, ryfterek said:

We all agree on that. The disputable thing is if the fact that nothing happens should prevent us from doing nothing? Can an effect be set in motion if it's known ahead it won't change a thing?    

If "it won't change a thing" then the effect is not resolved. The resolution of effects stated is to modify dies. If you have no die, you have no result to modify and the effect is not resolved. Effects that cannot be resolved does not allow to pay for it (as @skotothalamos have posted before).

So if you tell "I pay the cost, but nothing happens": Ten Numb can attack, got three hits and remove stress!! Happy hour!!

Sounds very OP to me. If you have no focus results you cannot spend stress.

Also with all abilities that contains "all".

"All" is one or more. "All" is not 0.

6 minutes ago, Arachneo said:

Also with all abilities that contains "all".

"All" is one or more. "All" is not 0.

That's definitely the assertion, and where this whole argument comes from. But even after four+ pages of debate, I've yet to see anything from FFG that's conclusive on this.

At this point, I've accepted that the community won't come to a consensus and just hope that FFG puts out a clear official ruling to put the issue to bed one way or the other.

15 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

This is going to lead down to a rabbit hole of "I (for some reason) want to take damage as Ten Numb while also clearing stress, so I activate his ability to turn my green focus result into a hit," isn't it?

No , not at all. Yeah, the RR patch seems to be in place to cover up for the loophole of trying to do so. But the way the patch is worded, it simply states, well, you can't physically do that, so rather than make the players explore quantum physics, let's settle for not doing a thing with it. I'm not trying to make an argument for magically turning a die to a face it can never achieve If that's what you're afraid of.

11 minutes ago, Arachneo said:

If "it won't change a thing" then the effect is not resolved. The resolution of effects stated is to modify dies. If you have no die, you have no result to modify and the effect is not resolved.

I was willing to give this path a spin until I found some quite unintuitive and unsettling use cases. Would you rule that in Range 1, Norra Wexley doesn't get to add an evade result while shot by Wedge Antilles? By enforcing this approach and having that adding a result counts as modifying dice, we shouldn't be able to do so if Norra hasn't rolled a single green.

11 minutes ago, Arachneo said:

"All" is one or more. "All" is not 0.  

Well, technically, "all" is every one (of), or the complete amount or number (of), or the whole (of): so simply each and every X that falls under a definition. Let's not get this thread down the... creative drain the other went, but if you've done all you could have while there was nothing you could have done , the statements do not contradict one another, or do they?

10 hours ago, ryfterek said:

I was willing to give this path a spin until I found some quite unintuitive and unsettling use cases. Would you rule that in Range 1, Norra Wexley doesn't get to add an evade result while shot by Wedge Antilles? By enforcing this approach and having that adding a result counts as modifying dice, we shouldn't be able to do so if Norra hasn't rolled a single green.

An incongruence here: you add one evade result, you dont't add zero evade results. Case not appliable. Although you have rolled no dice, modify adding a result is a valid posibility.

11 hours ago, ryfterek said:

Well, technically, "all" is every one (of), or the complete amount or number (of), or the whole (of): so simply each and every X that falls under a definition. Let's not get this thread down the... creative drain the other went, but if you've done all you could have while there was nothing you could have done , the statements do not contradict one another, or do they?

Yeah, and technically, nothing is "not anything", but i'm discussing about rules, not about language. So if you have a rule that specifies "nothing happens", in my poor understanding that means: nothing happens -> no effect resolved -> no more effects triggered -> no cost payed.

If you don't have a rule that specifies you can modify 0 results, then you cannot modify 0 results, just as the rules are writen now.

48 minutes ago, Arachneo said:

An  incongruence here: you add one evade result, you   dont't add zero  evade results. Case not appliable. Although you have rolled no dice, modify adding a result is a valid posibility. 

Ok, I misinterpreted your stance as "you cannot modify <0> dice results".

48 minutes ago, Arachneo said:

If you   don't have a rule that specifies you can modify 0 results, then you cannot modify 0 results, just as the rules are writen now     . 

... But here you're back at it again? If "You cannot modify <0> dice results" were to be a written down rule (it isn't) this would prevent the Norra interaction, wouldn't it? Perhaps a different wording would have to be used then?

47 minutes ago, Arachneo said:

in  my  poor understanding that means: nothing happens -> no effect resolved -> no more effects triggered -> no cost payed.  

My, just as possibly dubious, understating is: nothing happens -> effect revolves without applying changes to game state -> you-know-the-rest.

Why? Because the way the RR patch is worded. What except poor language choices would've kept the devs from stating that if XYZ can't physically be executed, than XYZ cannot be done - like all sorts of different rules are worded? Introduction of this new concept makes me give a benefit of doubt to useless results being resolvable.

You cannot change or reroll dice from a given face when there are no dice showing that face would be a possible phrasing.

Rules Reference 1.0.2 page 23

Quote

ROLLING AND REROLLING DICE
Q: If a card such as Han Solo [YT-1300, Scoundrel for Hire]
or Saturation Salvo instructs a player to reroll “all dice” or
a specific number of dice but there are not enough eligible
dice, what happens?
A: The player rerolls as many eligible dice as possible.
In the case of Han Solo [Scoundrel for Hire] and other effects that reroll “all
dice,” this means that if 1 or more dice are for any reason ineligible to be
rerolled or modified, Han Solo still rerolls the available dice that are eligible.

Following this example: only available dice.

Add this to all my previous arguments.

"All" don't include zero.

5 hours ago, Arachneo said:

Rules Reference 1.0.2 page 23

Following this example: only available dice.

Add this to all my previous arguments.

"All" don't include zero.

I don't get how does that reinforce your point? The "1 or more" in this case describes the die that "are not eligible for rerolling", so these that have to be excluded from the set. This still doesn't explain what happens when the set is reduced to zero. All eligible dice are rerolled. Is all dice == 0 eligible? Still unknown., IMHO.

11 hours ago, Arachneo said:

still rerolls the available  dice that are eligible.

What means available here?

41 minutes ago, Arachneo said:

What means available here?

Any that were not excluded and fit the initial criteria, I guess. All of them. We're stuck in a loophole here, bud.

To sum up my stance: I'm looking forward to the clarification being given. Any point given by @Arachneo and alike will be perfectly valid , as soon as and if we can obtain an explicit ruling stating that 0 pieces isn't satisfactory for the umbrella "all" term rather than be part of it, or that " nothing happening" from the RR patch applies to the whole effect (nothing happens as in the whole thing not taking place), not just to its execution (nothing happens as in the effect being resolved, just nothing happening due to it). But I really can see FFG tipping this weight both ways - and my only objective is to try to emphasize this topic requires a clarification from the devs as it doesn't have a clear interpretation not based on some unwritten assertion one way or another.

to sum up my stance: all does not include zero. looking forward to a not very clear clarification being given - and a crew slot being added to the auto pilot drone.

2 hours ago, meffo said:

a crew slot being added to the auto pilot drone

That'll probably happen when they give the Scurrg Reload and the Lancer a Gunner slot... ?

So you've all decided that All does not include zero. How do you think Genesis Red's ability works?

In normal operation Genesis Red will have no Focus or Evade tokens when he acquires a lock, does that mean he cannot use his ability as he cannot remove all his tokens, as he has none?

Correct. At which point the whole instruction is ignored and you move on to the next bit.

8 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Correct. At which point the whole instruction is ignored and you move on to the next bit.

Is the 'Then' not a dependant clause, i.e. do X then do Y. If you cannot do X do you do Y?

Can he even acquire a lock if his ability would fail?

Yes.

32 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Yes.

Why would the second part of his ability work if the first part fails though? Surely if the first part of his ability fails then you don't do the Then part.

There's a somewhat relevant quote

Quote

An effect that fails does not trigger any effects that would occur after a ship resolves that effect.

So the first effect fails, the second effect that's trigger by the first one resolve does not happen.

Moreover why is he allowed to Acquire a target lock if his ability would fail. It's a mandatory effect that is to apply some drawback to he ship as per the RR, he cannot do the mandatory effect so surely he cannot perform the action.